linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: Fix incorrect parameters in NULL pointer checking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cc10c08a-a9aa-48e1-896f-46b566930271@stanley.mountain>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:31:26 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, Hao Ge <hao.ge@...ux.dev>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@...il.com>,
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: Fix incorrect parameters in NULL pointer
 checking

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 03:07:27PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 2:50 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 02:03:17PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/19/24 7:34 PM, Hao Ge wrote:
> > > > From: Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
> > > >
> > > > Smatch reported the following warning:
> > > >      ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c:455 get_xlated_program()
> > > >      warn: variable dereferenced before check 'buf' (see line 454)
> > > >
> > > > It seems correct,so let's modify it based on it's suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > Actually,commit b23ed4d74c4d ("selftests/bpf: Fix invalid pointer
> > > > check in get_xlated_program()") fixed an issue in the test_verifier.c
> > > > once,but it was reverted this time.
> > > >
> > > > Let's solve this issue with the minimal changes possible.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1eb3732f-605a-479d-ba64-cd14250cbf91@stanley.mountain/
> > > > Fixes: b4b7a4099b8c ("selftests/bpf: Factor out get_xlated_program() helper")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
> > >
> > > In the future, please change subject '[PATCH] ...' to '[PATCH bpf-next] ...'
> > > so CI can properly test it.
> >
> > It feels like there should be a technical solution to this.  The CI system is
> > something on AWS and it's too expensive to just check every patch that's sent to
> > the bpf list?  My understanding is that there are only two bpf trees.
> >
> >         if [ "$FIXES_HASH" == "" ] ; then
> >                 TREE=next
> >         elif git merge-base --is-ancestor $FIXES_HASH origin/master ; then
> >                 TREE=linus
> >         else
> >                 TREE=next
> >         fi
> >
> > These days the zero day bot people are checking around a thousand git trees.
> > They pull emails off the various lists and apply them to the right places.  It's
> > a doable thing.
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Various people pointed out that you need to use the proper subject in
> the patches.
> You clearly knew that rule and yet you ignored it,
> and worse still you keep coming up with these excuses.
> Don't be surprised that people who are supposed to review your patches
> will take a long time to reply or "forget" about them as you "forget"
> about patch submission rules.

You're emailing the wrong person.  This isn't my patch.  I don't send BPF
patches.

regards,
dan carpenter